Jimquisition: Anita Sarkeesian - The Monster Gamers Created

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEXT
 

Trilligan:

runic knight:
You do realize that some depictions of black people as uneducated or women as vapid are justified in their use, yes?

Aha. I see. You think racism and misogyny are justifiable.

And you expect me to take a single word you say seriously?

Like I said before, we're done here.

Care to address the rest of that point or is it just easier to assume?

I never said racism or misogyny is justifiable, I was making a case that not everything CALLED racist or sexist actually is, even if they use traits often tied in with stereotypes. You know, kinda why I mentioned before that there are reasons why some traits are stuck together, such as "black skin" and "athletic" that can actually be done devoid of racist intent. Not every use of a woman as a weaker character is meant to portray the idea that all women are weaker. Not every use of a black character as a criminal is meant to portray all black people as criminals. It is a conclusion that is defined by a preconceived idea that any negative trait being associated to a character of a race or gender is instantly applicable to the larger group they are a part of. It is jumping to a conclusion this instantly means racism or sexism when it may well not be. But please, enjoy the strawman. Nice to see such outstanding intellectual honesty on display here.

I suspected you were being misleading when you were trying to argue for "guilt by association", but to see you so blatantly duck out of the discussion on these pretenses, it is really pretty petty.

Trilligan:

runic knight:
You do realize that some depictions of black people as uneducated or women as vapid are justified in their use, yes?

Aha. I see. You think racism and misogyny are justifiable.

Except that depicting a character who is black as also being uneducated, or a character who is a woman as vapid is neither racism or misogyny.

I thought we'd covered this sufficently before with another user in this discussion: A woman, is not all women. A black person is not all black people.

There is no need to justify racism and misogyny, because there is no racism and misogyny involved in the statement.

Bmagada:
I would agree that Anita Sarkeesian is a victim, in the way someone poking a bear with a stick and getting mauled would make someone a victim. She does this on purpose and she does it for money. She's more sexist than most men. I'm not going to go to the extreme of making a game about her or writing rape comments about her, but I don't feel bad for her because for the most part she has it coming.

Hmm, ok well a little while ago there was this thread http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.387184-So-how-about-that-wacky-Sarkeesian-lady?page=1
And somebody posted this http://archive.foolz.us/v/thread/139813364/
so no clue if that's what your looking for or if that's even valid, but its interesting

EDIT: well you posted that link too further down the page, oh well. Have a nice day sir. =)

matthew_lane:
A woman, is not all women. A black person is not all black people.

It's never, ever, ever just one. It's a stereotype because it's replayed constantly.

Every stereotype that is perpetuated in turn perpetuates the bigoted attitudes that inform that stereotype. Those attitudes creep into our culture and infest our minds, and they way they are shown in our media subtly alters the way we perceive those groups in reality.

The depiction of women in advertising, for instance.

It is imperative that we be aware of the insidious nature of these attitudes, and the way they perpetuate themselves, then. In order to spread that awareness, we must point them out, be critical of them, discuss them openly. The very worst thing we can do, however, is shout down the criticism and try to justify stereotyping, or say that it's no big deal. It is a big deal - because if we don't address it, then all that bigotry will simply fester and spread and grow deeper and darker within our society, until it becomes so ingrained we won't be able to remove it.

Trilligan:

matthew_lane:
A woman, is not all women. A black person is not all black people.

It's never, ever, ever just one. It's a stereotype because it's replayed constantly.

But its not constant Trilligan. If it were constant it would mean that every black character ever was represented as being uneducated. Since this is not the case, your statement immediately falls on its arse: An we go back to the start where i tell you that absolutist statments will make you look silly beacause they are so easy to refute.

Fact is that you tried to refute a statement about how something isn't absolutist by stating that it is, then when i pointed out that it isn't you tried it again.

Frankly, you are being knowingly intellectually dishonest, because on some level you must know that the narrative you've tried to construct is objectively wrong. If a character exists who is stupid & also incidentally black, that characters only difference from a stupid character who is white is that one is white & the other isn't.

Everything else you just did/said was hand waving in the hopes that your racism tact would distract your porponents from the currwent discussion of Anita & her slimy intellectually dishonest statements.

The chance to debate her on merit was lost once people started threatening to rape her. Now it's hard to debate her points without people thinking you hate her because she's a woman.

I still don't see how that is my fuck-up. Or why we should all be blinded with sympathy for her. Or why misogynists represent my opinion anymore than Sarkeesian represents feminists everywhere.

Lets get something straight. There should be far more games that are catered to women to provide the variety for everyone to get what they want. But...You DO NOT get to dictate what other people find sexually appealing. You DO NOT get to choose what men fantasize about and censor the things that appeal to said fantasies. In return men DO NOT have the right to do the same for you. Period.

The chance to debate her on merit was lost once people started threatening to rape her.

No, the chance to debate her on merit was lost the second she blocked anyone with an oppossing view point & then she insisted on demonising all oppossiton as misogynistic rapists.

Now it's hard to debate her points without people thinking you hate her because she's a woman.

Its even harder to debate her point when her white knight fanboys immediately make appeal to motives that you are attack her because she's a woman, rather then attacking her faulty logic chains.

Its made even harder when you have no voice at all because she's blocked you for dearing to have the tenacity to refute her statements with logic & sound objective data.

m19:
Lets get something straight. There should be far more games that are catered to women to provide the variety for everyone to get what they want. But...You DO NOT get to dictate what other people find sexually appealing. You DO NOT get to choose what men fantasize about and censor the things that appeal to said fantasies. In return men DO NOT have the right to do the same for you. Period.

Except its super rare to ever see men do this. A woman wants to get all hot & bothered over some sexual fantasy mens answer is generally "good for you." Men want the same paradigm extended to themselves "you sick fuck, women don't exist for your sick fantasies."

heck keeping on topic look at A.S video on the idea of the fembot... According to A.S even the idea of a men taking sexual advantage of a machine, is apparently dangerous to women... Oh wait, you can't watch that video, she redacted it (technically you can, its been mirrored somewhere)

I'd have to say in the western world, this paradigm of toxic sexuality, is held almost exclusively by women. It is rare for men in the western world to go into womens spaces & say "no you can't have that sexual fantasy" or "you aren't allowed to pursue your own interestes, seperate from the interests on men."

It's almost completely a female paradigm & it mostly revolves around the concept that male sexuality is somehow toxic or dangerous.

CAPTCHA: Up up and away.... Shhhhhh Captcha, its called a secret identity for a reason.

matthew_lane:
snip

I said constantly not exclusively. *facepalm*

You're as bad as the other guy - i.e. not worth talking to.

Trilligan:

matthew_lane:
snip

I said constantly not exclusively. *facepalm*

You're as bad as the other guy - i.e. not worth talking to.

conĚstant   [kon-stuhnt]
adjective
1.
not changing or varying; uniform; regular; invariable: All conditions during the three experiments were constant.
2.
continuing without pause or letup; unceasing: constant noise.

You can see the confusion. As constantly means always.

Spot1990:

Trilligan:

matthew_lane:
snip

I said constantly not exclusively. *facepalm*

You're as bad as the other guy - i.e. not worth talking to.

conĚstant   [kon-stuhnt]
adjective
1.
not changing or varying; uniform; regular; invariable: All conditions during the three experiments were constant.
2.
continuing without pause or letup; unceasing: constant noise.

You can see the confusion. As constantly means always.

I fear your words will fall of deaf ears. Trilligan there seems to be the sort to get an idea in his head and never let it go, in spite of trifling details such as reason or logic. After all, when the entire stance is nothing more then a series of logical fallacies and a bloated sense of morality, it is hard to see criticisms as anything but some boogieman.

Spot1990:

2.
continuing without pause or letup; unceasing: constant noise.

You can see the confusion. As constantly means always.

It means, in that second definition, incessantly. It does not, however, mean only.

We always see stereotypes replayed. We don't only see stereotypes. I don't see how that's confusing at all.

Which just leads me to believe people are being willfully obtuse. And are thus unworthy of my time.

Trilligan:

Spot1990:

2.
continuing without pause or letup; unceasing: constant noise.

You can see the confusion. As constantly means always.

It means, in that second definition, incessantly. It does not, however, mean only.

We always see stereotypes replayed. We don't only see stereotypes. I don't see how that's confusing at all.

Which just leads me to believe people are being willfully obtuse. And are thus unworthy of my time.

I'm sorry, did you just go on about how constant doesn't mean always & then immediately restated your previous statement using the word always?

Wow.

Trilligan:

Spot1990:

2.
continuing without pause or letup; unceasing: constant noise.

You can see the confusion. As constantly means always.

It means, in that second definition, incessantly. It does not, however, mean only.

We always see stereotypes replayed. We don't only see stereotypes. I don't see how that's confusing at all.

Which just leads me to believe people are being willfully obtuse. And are thus unworthy of my time.

Unceasing... You realise that means not stopping right, as in always.

Spot1990:
Unceasing... You realise that means not stopping right, as in always.

It does not, however, mean only.

We always see stereotypes replayed. We don't only see stereotypes. I don't see how that's confusing at all.

Which just leads me to believe people are being willfully obtuse. And are thus unworthy of my time.

Trilligan:
Which just leads me to believe people are being willfully obtuse. And are thus unworthy of my time.

Dude give Parkers Law a rest: You said something stupidly unsupporatable, you got called out on it & now you are just making yourself look silly by not admitting to the clear misuse of the english language.

None of us are perfect, but when you feel the need to go to these lengths with basic semantics, it just loses you any credibility you might have had. In the future, don't resort to trying to make absolutist statements & we won't have any absolutist statements to easily refute.

Trilligan:

Spot1990:
Unceasing... You realise that means not stopping right, as in always.

It does not, however, mean only.

We always see stereotypes replayed. We don't only see stereotypes. I don't see how that's confusing at all.

Which just leads me to believe people are being willfully obtuse. And are thus unworthy of my time.

Always, as in all of the time, which does indeed mean only. If something happens all of the time then there's no time for anything else to happen. I'm not even arguing with what you're trying to say at the moment I'm just saying that that's why people think you made an absolutist statement, your word choice was poor.

Just watched this and I couldn't agree more, heck this thread is a good example of how the subject of this one person can turn.

My opinion is simple, sure she might be milking it but that's fair enough since they thrown in the first place. As said by Jim, if the loud and stupid carry on attacking someone based on their gender/race/whatever they deserve what they get.

Spot1990:
Always, as in all of the time, which does indeed mean only. If something happens all of the time then there's no time for anything else to happen. I'm not even arguing with what you're trying to say at the moment I'm just saying that that's why people think you made an absolutist statement, your word choice was poor.

Saying something happens all the damn time is a linguistic convention that is common enough that my meaning is obvious. A person would have to make an extra effort to take that the wrong way.

Which constitutes being willfully obtuse.

Trilligan:

Spot1990:
Always, as in all of the time, which does indeed mean only. If something happens all of the time then there's no time for anything else to happen. I'm not even arguing with what you're trying to say at the moment I'm just saying that that's why people think you made an absolutist statement, your word choice was poor.

Saying something happens all the damn time is a linguistic convention that is common enough that my meaning is obvious. A person would have to make an extra effort to take that the wrong way.

Which constitutes being willfully obtuse.

You didn't say "all the damn time" which is clearly a turn of phrase, You said "constantly" which can be misconstrued as you making an absolutist statement. "All the damn time" is clearly hyperbolic, "constant", less so. And don't act like you don't know that because when the definition of constantly was brought up you tried to insist that it wasn't what you meant. You tried to use the definition of constantly to prove yourself right and now you're saying you didn't literally mean constantly.

Spot1990:
You didn't say "all the damn time" which is clearly a turn of phrase, You said "constantly" which can be misconstrued as you making an absolutist statement. "All the damn time" is clearly hyperbolic, "constant", less so. And don't act like you don't know that because when the definition of constantly was brought up you tried to insist that it wasn't what you meant. You tried to use the definition of constantly to prove yourself right and now you're saying you didn't literally mean constantly.

If I say that the sun rises constantly, that doesn't mean that is the only thing that the sun is doing ever, and I don't mean to say that it is the only thing the sun is doing ever. It does mean that sunrise is a constant. Every day there's a sunrise - the sun rises constantly.

It's the same idea as the idea of multiple infinities. There is an infinity of intergers = 1, 2, 3, etc., but that doesn't automatically rule out that there is also an infinity of real numbers between 1 and 2. Intergers are constant, that doesn't rule out the existence of pi.

I didn't think this was a difficult concept to grasp. Evidently I was wrong.

Hallowed Lady:
Just watched this and I couldn't agree more, heck this thread is a good example of how the subject of this one person can turn.

My opinion is simple, sure she might be milking it but that's fair enough since they thrown in the first place. As said by Jim, if the loud and stupid carry on attacking someone based on their gender/race/whatever they deserve what they get.

Except that there are people who are attacking her idelogy, not her gender or her race, or her whatever. But its much easier for the beta males such as yourself to assume that anyone with a grievance is obviously attacking her, rather then the dumb as shit nonsense she's spouts.

Take some time & actually investigate some of the claims being made, rather then assuming that we are automatically attacking her.

Trilligan:

Spot1990:
You didn't say "all the damn time" which is clearly a turn of phrase, You said "constantly" which can be misconstrued as you making an absolutist statement. "All the damn time" is clearly hyperbolic, "constant", less so. And don't act like you don't know that because when the definition of constantly was brought up you tried to insist that it wasn't what you meant. You tried to use the definition of constantly to prove yourself right and now you're saying you didn't literally mean constantly.

If I say that the sun rises constantly, that doesn't mean that is the only thing that the sun is doing ever, and I don't mean to say that it is the only thing the sun is doing ever. It does mean that sunrise is a constant. Every day there's a sunrise - the sun rises constantly.

It's the same idea as the idea of multiple infinities. There is an infinity of intergers = 1, 2, 3, etc., but that doesn't automatically rule out that there is also an infinity of real numbers between 1 and 2. Intergers are constant, that doesn't rule out the existence of pi.

I didn't think this was a difficult concept to grasp. Evidently I was wrong.

Perhaps it is that inability to understand that others might perceive what you say literally or entirely differently then you that is causing this issue in the first place. Granted, after your mental gymnastics, I was quite willing to write you off as an intellectually dishonest, ethically selective git, but looking at your constant attempts to avoid even the simple statement of "I wasn't as clear as I should have been, here let me reword it for clarity" really has me wondering if it isn't just some lack of understanding others in general. Miscommunication happens, part of the human experience, stop trying to fight it just because everyone else doesn't understand exactly what you meant. Different views out there, don't act so hostile or egocentric about it when they cause some miscommunication.

Constant usually means always, perpetual, ever going. The exceptions to the actual definition of the word usually only stem from specific phrases that indicate hyperbole or by tone of voice in saying it. Neither were present here. Thus, people have to take what you said as what it was presented as, this being a statement that described something as without exception.

matthew_lane:

Hallowed Lady:
Just watched this and I couldn't agree more, heck this thread is a good example of how the subject of this one person can turn.

My opinion is simple, sure she might be milking it but that's fair enough since they thrown in the first place. As said by Jim, if the loud and stupid carry on attacking someone based on their gender/race/whatever they deserve what they get.

Except that there are people who are attacking her idelogy, not her gender or her race, or her whatever. But its much easier for the beta males such as yourself to assume that anyone with a grievance is obviously attacking her, rather then the dumb as shit nonsense she's spouts.

Take some time & actually investigate some of the claims being made, rather then assuming that we are automatically attacking her.

There is a bit of an issue though, as many who attack do so by grabbing whatever weapon they can. I call it "x-box live warfare tactics". Much like how you will get assholes trying to custom fit their insults to you based on whatever point they can find to get you with on x-box live, so too will you see it online in general. Race, gender, sexual orientation, whatever is likely to cause reaction will get heaved.

Unfortunately, this habit by a large number of assholes often presents a deceptive notion. Since they are using racist slurs against a black guy, it must be racist. Since they use female slurs, it must be sexist. Sexuality slurs against homosexuals must mean homophobia. While that may be the stance of some of the comments, it is hard to distinguish the intent behind insults or the motivation for them with a riled up group. Word choice is hard use to distinguish those who genuinely feel those of another race or gender are inferior from those just emotional or dickish trying to get a reaction.

This is, of course, assuming that it is only related to gamers and not opened up to the larger base of internet users in general. You see a similar pattern (insults matched to insulted), though at that point it is hard to make a case it was gamers or even related to gaming given the nature of internet trolls.

matthew_lane:

Hallowed Lady:
Just watched this and I couldn't agree more, heck this thread is a good example of how the subject of this one person can turn.

My opinion is simple, sure she might be milking it but that's fair enough since they thrown in the first place. As said by Jim, if the loud and stupid carry on attacking someone based on their gender/race/whatever they deserve what they get.

Except that there are people who are attacking her idelogy, not her gender or her race, or her whatever. But its much easier for the beta males such as yourself to assume that anyone with a grievance is obviously attacking her, rather then the dumb as shit nonsense she's spouts.

Take some time & actually investigate some of the claims being made, rather then assuming that we are automatically attacking her.

Firstly, unless my name didn't give it anyway, I'm a girl so I'm not saying this out of whatever you think it is.

If people can TRY to be resonable then that is a start, since I know she's full of bull. I'm aiming this at those who made the 'lol woman stfu' kind of comment, because there were way more than needed. Note I said loud and stupid rather than everyone, because I'm part of the group that hate her for her lack of research. As long as people do not act like a rear ends then I'm fine, but those who throw insults against gender/race/whatever should have them thrown right back in their faces.

Hallowed Lady:
If people can TRY to be resonable then that is a start, since I know she's full of bull.

People did try to be reasonable. In fact the overwhelming majority of people werereasonable, they still got blocked.

Hallowed Lady:
but those who throw insults against gender/race/whatever should have them thrown right back in their faces.

An thats exactly what happened to her. She trolled 4chan & they trolled her back.

matthew_lane:

Hallowed Lady:
If people can TRY to be resonable then that is a start, since I know she's full of bull.

People did try to be reasonable. In fact the overwhelming majority of people werereasonable, they still got blocked.

Hallowed Lady:
but those who throw insults against gender/race/whatever should have them thrown right back in their faces.

An thats exactly what happened to her. She trolled 4chan & they trolled her back.

Firstly I never said she wasn't getting what she deserved, nor did I say it was a majority that were insulting her. The problem is those who are most insulting tend to be 'louder' and easier to see, such as the woman herself.

To me the issue comes down to the fact that a small number went to the low of sending threats of rape and general harm, which is never an answer. I don't care if she trolled 4chan or is terrible at researching, at the end of the day it's not okay for people to use those threats.

You assume I have nothing against her, I do. Her videos lack effort in research and she's allowed her own opinion to colour her views, making her videos worth nothing. She asked for money for something that I've seen other Youtube users do without funds.

However that doesn't mean I have to agree with the loud and stupid few who have thrown threats around. I, much like yourself probably, hate her videos but I also hate how the idiots tend to shine through in these types of things.

Ok so Jim, whats up with the hypocracy? I have never heard her name before your video, so you are now one of the people you spent whole video ranting about. Whats up with that.
also reading up on the last page:
constant=always=/=only
example: he constantly breathes.
he breathes all the time, but that is not the only thing he does.

more to the point example:
constantly creating steretypical games.
there is always a stereotypical game coming out, but those games arent the only ones that come out.

Strazdas:
Ok so Jim, whats up with the hypocracy? I have never heard her name before your video, so you are now one of the people you spent whole video ranting about. Whats up with that.
also reading up on the last page:
constant=always=/=only
example: he constantly breathes.
he breathes all the time, but that is not the only thing he does.

more to the point example:
constantly creating steretypical games.
there is always a stereotypical game coming out, but those games arent the only ones that come out.

Wouldn't that then make the argument one about what defines a "stereotypical" game? If one is to say they are always releasing new ones, then how does one define what is one and even after that, what is the case one would make a case against it? I know I have seen a lot that people will make an argument that goes something like this.
1. women are almost always portrayed as attractive and sexy, therefore stereotype to use a woman as sexy and attractive.
2. Stereotypes are bad.
>
A. Therefore, using a woman who is sexy and attractive is bad.

The problem in it though, is that A. it is nearly circular logic (stereotype mostly being defined by over saturation of use is used to justify why it is bad to use stereotypes because they are used too much.) and B. it relies on an idea a stereotype is by default bad, when, especially in this media, stereotypes are used in EVERY trait, not just race or gender. Strong but dumb hero type? How about brainless sinister "destroy the world" villains? Quirky comic relief? Dark brooding anti-hero? All are stereotypical cliches.
This is not to undercut that some stereotypes can be hurtful or harmful, or that some are used as representations of bigoted ideas, but it seems to be painting with broad strokes of a brush.

Also, not saying this is your argument here, merely going off on a tangent inspired by what you said.

barber chair - captcha...I don't need a haircut o.0

I watched most of her Youtube videos after seeing Jim's report. First of all, fine job as always Jim. Second, I couldn't find much to disagree with in any of her commentary. I wish her the best of luck in what I'm sure will be a massive headache.

Strazdas:
Ok so Jim, whats up with the hypocracy? I have never heard her name before your video, so you are now one of the people you spent whole video ranting about. Whats up with that.

At some point a story is big enough where you can't complain that someone is making it bigger by commentating on it, and Anita Sarkeesian was as big as videogame stories get, and I have no idea how you managed to miss it. Also he's not ranting about her, or even the fact we're aware of her, he's ranting about the size it got to because of harassment.

I feel bad for the Herp mc derps that donated...she is two months behind first video..and Blocking all communications with people who gave her money....I guess they have not realized she took the money and ran!

Sangreal Gothcraft:
I feel bad for the Herp mc derps that donated...she is two months behind first video..and Blocking all communications with people who gave her money....I guess they have not realized she took the money and ran!

Heh heh. You know, I was kind of wondering what was going on. Everyone is arguing over this woman and I couldn't seem to find out exactly WHAT they were arguing about.

It seems she has no videos and no opinions, and is just yelling sexist BECAUSE REASONS!

Jim, the problem with your view is that you are trying to put rational, reasoning debate into the same sphere as troll. The very definition of a troll is that they are incapable of rational, reasoning debate. They are creatures of discord, unrelenting venom and pure, emotional irrationality. The very notion that anyone could put out a video that is even passingly controversial without attracting a troll swarm even when the actual product has yet to be seen seems itself to be utterly irrational. The idea was that if the trolls hadn't stormed the gates that she would have just faded away into the aether of the internet may be true but in the end that's still going to happen. This time next year no one will likely know who this woman is or what her videos were about since it is the troll horde that is keeping it alive. She isn't presenting anything new or earth shattering and so they don't have the substance to stand on their own without the attention of the horde. The trolls also don't have the attention span to keep up with it for that long before they find someone or something else to vomit their hatred on. When the horde moves on they will take the attention they brought to the subject with them.

You know, it's funny. Now that the haters slowly realize what they have done, they scream: "That's what she planned all along! She knew that this would cause a massive shitstorm to bolster her views! We were tricked!" No seriously, that's a common argument you see on YouTube now.

Ignoring that the bottom of the issue is, that even if she did trick them, they were all too eager to really do give her a storm of rape threats and massive antagonism. This should not be ok, just because it's the internet.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here